Sports

'Anti Indian' Speed?

Section of the Indian media have labelled the ICC chief 'anti-Indian' In Australia, the country of his birth, he is being viewed as being blackmailed into subjection by India based on his decision to remove Steve Bucknor. What gives?

Advertisement

'Anti Indian' Speed?
info_icon

Heading a governing body for a world sport is always a difficult task. Itbecomes more so if one member country is successful in establishing a financialmonopoly of sorts. With India contributing more than half the revenue generatedfrom cricket, there’s little doubt that the ICC will for eternity be underthreat from a possible Indian invasion. And the man always in the firing line isthe Chief Executive, who, irrespective of what his personal beliefs are, isalways subjected to scathing criticism.

Malcolm Speed is no different. Despite running the game in its best interestsand with considerably efficiency for years now, Speed has been labeled‘anti-Indian’ by some of the Indian media and is currently one of the mostdisliked men in the country. In Australia too, he is being looked upon as onecapable of being blackmailed into subjection by India based on his decision toremove Steve Bucknor from officiating in the third Test starting at Perth on 16January 2008.

Having come to know Speed from fairly close quarters over the last year or so,there’s no doubt in my mind that the labeling is unfair. Speed, a man of firmcharacter, has always acted in the best interests of the game. When he addressedthe media at the MCG on 8January 2008, he was well aware that his statements were capable of dividingthe cricket world. He was also aware that the continuation of the current serieswas largely dependant on his decisions. And there’s little doubt he did thebest possible under the circumstances. Had he not removed Bucknor fromofficiating in the third Test, the Indians may have cancelled the tour. At thesame time he was at pains to emphasize that the ICC, which alone has the rightto arbitrate in such matters, took the decision in the best interests of thegame and the series.

Despite his efforts, the removal has been touted as a victory of the BCCI by theAustralian media. Many have gone on to castigate the ICC as a toothless body. Inreality, however, the decision taken is the only sensible one under thecircumstances. Had Speed been adamant and allowed Bucknor to continue, he ranthe risk of dividing the world game, which as an administrator he could illafford. At the same time he made sure that there was little departure fromprocedure, thus protecting the sanctity of the ICC.

Advertisement

His decision to summon Ranjan Madugalle too speaks of his prudence as anadministrator. Knowing full well that the building tension needs to bedissipated, he has summoned Madugalle, a man the Indians are fond of and havefaith in. At the same time by allowing Mike Procter to continue with his job, hehas given him the support a parent body needs to offer its employee. Finally, bypulling up Brad Hogg for alleged abuse, the ICC under Speed has ensured thatthere are no double standards in its manner of working.

Yet he continues to receive flak for having negated Indian interests. Let us beclear: It is simply not possible for Speed to unilaterally revoke the Harbhajanban. The ban has been imposed by a ICC appointed match referee in the presenceof a legal arbitrator and as ICC’s Chief Executive it is Speed’s duty touphold the decision. At the same time, by granting India the right to appeal, hehas shown that he is one who goes strictly by the book and isn’t biased infavour of his country of birth. If the appeals commissioner does uphold theappeal, there’s no doubt that Speed and the ICC will come forward and declareHarbhajan free to play.

Speed, who is currently serving the last few months of his tenure, is doing hisbest to make plans for a splendid ICC centenary in 2009 of which he will not bea part. "Once I hand over the reins to my successor I feel I should simplywatch things from a distance." He is keen to let India and all the membercountries have their say in matters of the centenary and is doing much to ensurethat the planning is democratic. Little more can be asked of an administrator.

When I communicated to him the growing sentiment in India, he seemed depressed.In response to my queries he sent a short email that says it all. "Of course Iam not anti-India. I treat India like any other country and am acting in thebest interests of the game." Rational analyses of his actions prove there’slittle reason to disbelieve him.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement